56 Bream Street Coogee NSW 2034

Demolition of existing semi-detached dwelling and construction of a 4 storey residential flat building comprising 3 units, basement parking, landscaping and associated works (variations to heigh of buildings and FSR of the RLEP 2021)

External link Read more information

We found this application for you on the planning authority's website 4 months ago. It was received by them 1 day earlier.

(Source: Randwick City Council, reference DA/490/2021)

16 Comments

Have your say by adding your own comment.

  1. RICK BOTELLA commented

    To Randwick Council,

    RE: DA for the redevelopment of 56 Bream Street Coogee.

    The proposed redevelopment is too high (it exceeds current height limits) and will cause overshadowing, increased traffic at a problematic roundabout and will reduce access to all amenities in an already crowded and congested part of Coogee.

    I would ask that you reject the proposal.

    Thank you

    Rick Botella
    160 Beach st. Coogee

  2. Helen Pitt commented

    To Randwick Council

    RE: DA for the redevelopment of 56 Bream Street Coogee.

    I would like to object to this development on space, height (it is 4 metres over the 12 metre limit for the area) and traffic grounds.

    As a local resident too many developments are going through without proper thought for currents residents. There is already little space to park and we don't more tall buildings in our vicinity. We have a 12 metre limit for a good reason. Please respect it.

    Helen Pitt
    2/126 Coogee Bay Rd

  3. Paul Fraser commented

    Dear Randwick City Council,

    I refer to the DA for the redevelopment of 56 Bream Street Coogee.

    This is an inappropriate development for this block and this street.

    The proposed redevelopment is too bulky and exceeds current height limits and will create overshadowing, will increase traffic at a difficult and problematic roundabout intersection, and will increase congestion in Coogee.

    Please reject this proposal.

    Regards

  4. James Hope commented

    Dear Randwick City Council,

    I refer to the DA for the redevelopment of 56 Bream Street Coogee.

    This is a completely inappropriate development for this block and this street.

    The proposed redevelopment is too bulky and too high (it exceeds current height limits), will cause unacceptable overshadowing, will increase traffic at a difficult and problematic roundabout intersection, and will reduce the urban amenity in what is an already crowded and congested part of Coogee.

    I would please ask that you reject this proposal.

    Thank you.

  5. Mary Hope commented

    Dear Randwick City Council,

    I refer to the DA for the redevelopment of 56 Bream Street Coogee.

    I write to indicate my total objection to this proposed redevelopment of this property at 56 Bream Street, Coogee. This is a completely inappropriate development for this specific block of land and in relationship to the adjoining properties on Bream Street.

    The proposed redevelopment is too bulky and too high (it exceeds current height limits), will cause unacceptable overshadowing, will increase traffic at a difficult and problematic roundabout intersection, and will reduce the urban amenity in what is an already crowded and congested part of Coogee.

    I would please ask that you reject this proposal.

  6. Nic Dyer commented

    The size and height of development are to large for such a small block. The height will be significantly higher than all the buildings in the block east along bream st.
    62 and 64 bream st are two story residences not three, little own four stories of the proposed building.
    Significant overshadowing of all buildings south and east as well as a reduction in privacy for all buildings in the vicinity.

  7. Peter Bishop commented

    Dear Randwick City Council,

    I refer to the DA/490/2021 for the redevelopment of 56 Bream Street Coogee,

    I would object to this proposed development for the following reasons,

    . The lot size of 290m2 does not comply with the LEP minimum requirement of 325m2 for R3 medium residential.
    . The building exceeds the height limits prescribed from R3 Medium Density residential development Randwick LEP 2012 of 12m.
    . The building FSR exceeds the R3 Medium Density residential development Randwick LEP 2012 of 0.9:1.
    . The Developer has not adequately demonstrated any strategic merit in justifying the deviation forms the Randwick LEP and DCP.
    . The development will cause unacceptable overshadowing of private residences and public areas.
    . The deeps soil areas shown in the plans are highly questionable.
    . The assertions that 50 percent of the site is landscaped is questionable.
    . The proposed building is unsightly and unimaginative. The design is of low quality with only utilitarian qualities and quite frankly an eye sore.
    . The proposed set backs are completely inadequate given he scale of the proposed development, and will limit the development potential for the eastern neighbours.
    . The proposed development is out of character with the existing area.

    It is absurd that a developer would purchase a 290m2 site knowing the constraints of the LEP and DCP and then submit an DA seeking to grossly exceed the permitted FSR and Height.

    There is no strategic merit in approving this development. The constraints of the site would have been apparent to the developer at the time of purchase.

    Thank you for considering these matters.

    Yours sincerely

    Peter Bishop & Sheridan Connon

  8. Svetlana T commented

    Hello all,

    1-3) The new proposed building is a hazard to the local bird life.

    1) Firstly the green area is reduced and brought to closer proximity to the living space.

    2) Secondly the proposed vegetation is narrow and not sufficiently diverse.

    3) Thirdly there is a much larger number of apartments leading to an increase in local traffic.

    1-3) Birds need tree canopy and bush canopy and a ground cover to live. They also need ample space to exist at a distance from people. Then the birds form an important part of the local ecosystem and contribute to the wellbeing of residents by being there and participating in insect control and the audible background at sunrise.

    4) Fourthly there is no bike rack or outdoor gym on the property, which should be in easy access for any new development in Sydney in my opinion, as people can go to schools or shops or work on a bicycle easily. The development applications should reflect this as a top priority, as this is a cost effective, cheap way to have an effect on the lifestyle of our future population.

    Looks to me that in the last year or two the number of people who have a bicycle and use it every day has increased dramatically. Storage facilities for bicycles currently are under developed and confusing. An undercover well lit (not underground - on the same level as street) elegant easily accessible bicycle parking is important.

    Imagine a time when we ride to school and ride to work every day in a suburb that is naturally pleasant to ride in. Let's aim to get there in each new proposal.

    5) Please plant native species on the premises. They are easier to take care of and need less maintenance.

    6) Please consider adding natural ventilation features to the building, such as double glazed windows, a double skin facade, passive evaporative cooling, or a solar chimney. They would be appropriate to reduce the costs of air conditioning.

    7) The higher levels are not surrounded by greenery and appear to lack privacy, either by being at a distance to surroundings. They also don't have enough green canopy to provide a shade from the sun. It would be rather inconvenient for me to pass free time in such a balcony in proximity to passers by. Just look at Figure 16 in the 'Environmental Effects' document, everything is green but the new proposed building is not.

    8) As a result of some of the above, the proposed development is a hazard to families. They don't have enough space or natural aura to grow a baby.

    I would like to ask the architect and the manager for this proposal to consider the above and alter the proposal significantly to reduce the number of inhabitants, the utilized area, and as pointed out by other people, reduce the height of the building.

    I would like to ask Randwick to stand for greener livelier space in Coogee.

    Thank you for your time.

  9. Mary NG commented

    RE: DA for the redevelopment of 56 Bream Street Coogee.
    I would like to object to this development on height as it is 4 metres over the 12 metre limit for the area. Numbers 60-62 and 64-66 Bream Street are on the same block as the proposed development and are 2 story residences (as in ground level and 1st floor) and the proposed development will be significantly taller that the buildings in the block east along Bream Street.

    The stratas for Numbers 60-62 and 64-66 Bream Street share an open backyard area where there are clothes lines set up for the residents. The proposed development will cast significant overshadowing not only of Numbers 60-62 and 64-66 Bream Street but also of other buildings south and east, as well as an obvious reduction in privacy for the buildings in the vicinity.

    I would ask that you reject the proposed DA and ensure that the existing 12 metre high limit rule is adhered to.

  10. Raymond Ng on behalf of Mary Ng commented

    RE: DA for the redevelopment of 56 Bream Street Coogee.
    I would like to object to this development on height as it is 4 metres over the 12 metre limit for the area. Numbers 60-62 and 64-66 Bream Street are on the same block as the proposed development and are 2 story residences (as in ground level and 1st floor) and the proposed development will be significantly taller that the buildings in the block east along Bream Street.

    The stratas for Numbers 60-62 and 64-66 Bream Street share an open backyard area where there are clothes lines set up for the residents. The proposed development will cast significant overshadowing not only of Numbers 60-62 and 64-66 Bream Street but also of other buildings south and east, as well as an obvious reduction in privacy for the buildings in the vicinity.

    I would ask that you reject the proposed DA and ensure that the existing 12 metre high limit rule is adhered to.

  11. Fernande Nir commented

    I refer to the DA for the redevelopment of 56 Bream Street Coogee.

    I would like to object to this development on height (4 metres over the 12 metre limit for the area), bulk, and traffic grounds.

    This is a completely inappropriate development for this block and this street, it is too bulky and too high and completely out of character for this street.

    It will cause unacceptable overshadowing as well as significant loss of privacy to all neighbours to the east and south.

    I would please ask that you reject this proposal.

  12. Nam Yen CHUNG & Jessica VOON commented

    Dear Randwick City Council

    Would like to object to the proposed development REF:DA/490/2021 56 Bream Street COOGEE NSW.

    We share the same views with all mentioned points addressed by Mr.Peter Bishop
    ---
    . The lot size of 290m2 does not comply with the LEP minimum requirement of 325m2 for R3 medium residential.
    . The building exceeds the height limits prescribed from R3 Medium Density residential development Randwick LEP 2012 of 12m.
    . The building FSR exceeds the R3 Medium Density residential development Randwick LEP 2012 of 0.9:1.
    . The Developer has not adequately demonstrated any strategic merit in justifying the deviation forms the Randwick LEP and DCP.
    . The development will cause unacceptable overshadowing of private residences and public areas.
    . The deeps soil areas shown in the plans are highly questionable.
    . The assertions that 50 percent of the site is landscaped is questionable.
    . The proposed building is unsightly and unimaginative. The design is of low quality with only utilitarian qualities and quite frankly an eye sore.
    . The proposed set backs are completely inadequate given the scale of the proposed development, and will limit the development potential for the eastern neighbours.
    . The proposed development is out of character with the existing area.

    The proposed size and height of the development for the Lot size is of concern and contrast to properties east along Bream Street 58, 60-62 & 64-66, and the scale of excavation is of high concern based on the geotechnical report [ref: 5.1, 5.2, 5.3] the impact of vibrations that would proceed to neighbouring buildings is also worrying.

    We kindly request Randwick council reject the proposal.
    Jessica Voon & N.Y Chung

  13. Brian Hannaford commented

    Dear Randwick Council

    I refer to the DA for the redevelopment of 56 Bream Street Coogee.

    The size and scale of the development for this block and this street is inappropriate

    The proposed redevelopment exceeds current height limits and will increase traffic at a difficult and already difficult corner.

    Please reject the proposal

  14. Richard Sheppard commented

    The proposed development clearly exceeds the 12m limit and sets a precedent for the area . Given the size and height of the building is excessive for the size of the block it will create a shadow over our property significantly being a 12m at roof pitch.
    I firmly reject the proposal.

  15. Ray Zammit commented

    I would like to object to the proposed development REF:DA/490/2021 56 Bream Street COOGEE NSW.

    I share the same views with Mr.Peter Bishop on the development, mainly all the mentioned points below
    ---
    . The lot size of 290m2 does not comply with the LEP minimum requirement of 325m2 for R3 medium residential.
    . The building exceeds the height limits prescribed from R3 Medium Density residential development Randwick LEP 2012 of 12m.
    . The building FSR exceeds the R3 Medium Density residential development Randwick LEP 2012 of 0.9:1.
    . The Developer has not adequately demonstrated any strategic merit in justifying the deviation forms the Randwick LEP and DCP.
    . The development will cause unacceptable overshadowing of private residences and public areas.
    . The deeps soil areas shown in the plans are highly questionable.
    . The assertions that 50 percent of the site is landscaped is questionable.
    . The proposed building is unsightly and unimaginative. The design is of low quality with only utilitarian qualities and quite frankly an eye sore.
    . The proposed set backs are completely inadequate given the scale of the proposed development, and will limit the development potential for the eastern neighbours.
    . The proposed development is out of character with the existing area.

    The proposed size and height of the development for the Lot size is of concern and contrast to properties east along Bream Street 58, 60-62 & 64-66, and the scale of excavation is of high concern based on the geotechnical report [ref: 5.1, 5.2, 5.3] the impact of vibrations that would proceed to neighbouring buildings is also worrying.

    I firmly reject this proposal.

  16. Anthony Cousins commented

    I can't see how going higher and denser on such a small block is in keeping with the streetscape or neighbourhood. It would also rob a number of adjacent properties of important afternoon sun, particularly in winter.

    I would urge Randwick City Council not to support this development.

  1. Have you made a donation or gift to a Councillor or Council employee? You may need to disclose this.

  2. Please use your real full name if possible.

  1. We never display your street address. Why do you need my address?

This week

Find PlanningAlerts useful?

This independent project is run by a local charity, the OpenAustralia Foundation. PlanningAlerts is powered by small, tax-deductible donations from the people who use it to stay informed about changes to their local area. If you find it useful, chip in to support PlanningAlerts.

Back PlanningAlerts